nobody needs nuclear weapons. as a deterrant or not, having them is not a detterant really, as surely nobody, even dumb ass bush would use nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons= massive destruvtion and a fcuked up world.Iran can have nuclear energy, who says they're going to make nuclear weapons? If they do, why does the USA care? It has nuclear weapons, almost every MEDC does have nuclear weapons. whats the point and whats the issue with iran? everyone worrying about iran and north korea (which i havent heard about yet, sorry im slow, lol) as the USA is more of a threat surely as they've acctually used WMD's before, there the only country to have done this, just like SteveA said. Maybe we should worry about this "democratic" America first. Hope that hasnt uspet the boat.
-
North Korea Missle Launch
-
In reply to: The war in Iraq has strengthened Iran's hand politically and strategically. Yes that has been an unfortunate consequence, but that doesnt change that Iran (not Oil or democracy) are the reasons we are in Iraq. In reply to: The U.S. is now stretched a bit thin to take any near-term action in Iran, I did say a "couple decades" from now would be when we invade Iran. Noone wants war with Iran while the we're still busy with Iraq. To invade Iran we need a paciffied Iraq which lets us use it as a military base and we wont invade Iran until that is achieved. In reply to: and politically, the U.S. will likely get less support than they might have has we not had a debacle in Iraq. Again, remember that I said a couple decades from now. The media will get bored, a few administrations will come and go from the white-house, and the people will forget. Happens every time, thankfully. In reply to: If (or when) there is a civil war in Iraq, a large chunk of what's left of it will be aligned with Iran. As if they didn't already have enough oil. Which is why we must enssure that power in Iraq is in the hands of those friendly to the USA. In reply to: Iran are a big problem? And from where did the 9/11 terrorists hail? Mostly from those great friends of ours, Saudi Arabia. Egypt as well. Great democracies, they are. Don't you think it looks hypocrtitical to the world that the U.S. invades Iraq, but defends Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and gives tons of aid to Egypt? The first thing you need to understand is that terrorists are little flies. In the long run they mean very little. Where those terrorists actualy came from is an irrelevancy in grand strategy. We wouldnt be invading Iran to stop islamic terrorism (just like we havnt invaded Iraq to stop islamic terrorism). We would be invading Iran to stop them doind a number of things; acquiring nuclear weapons, annihillating the Israeli people (they have admittd they want to do this), underminding western security, and supporting Pakistan take on India. So you see terrorism is really a very minor point compared to the genocide of the Israeli people and conquest of parts of India.We have an understanding with the Saudi Arabians and Kuwaities. We invest in them, business grows strong, and they dont support our ennemies. These deals are with their governments and what some dissidants among their population do is not the governments fault. And Egypt is just a silyl example. Egypt is among the most secular countries in the middle-east and has been the victim of Islamicist terrorism as a result. That some of their citizens are nut-jobs doesnt mean we would wnat to throw away an ally of ours.
-
In reply to: Iran can have nuclear energy, who says they're going to make nuclear weapons? If they do, why does the USA care? Israel.
-
In 20 years, Iran might well have reliable ICBMs and a slew of a-bombs.The U.S. has had very mixed success, at best, in pacifying governments. Iranians, even the ones who didn't support the Islamic revolution, saw the Shah as an American puppet. The CIA's toppling of Mossadegh and installation of a royal did not work in the long term. The U.S. can't just install governments and expect the populations to just roll over on their backs.Egypt is secular and Saudi Arabia is Wahabi, but both countries are run by despots. In fact, Egypt is going downhill in terms of democracy and human rights. They're dictators, but they're our dictators. Unfortunately, the result in both countries has been radicalization of the populations (especially in Saudi Arabia), where the despots come to an accommodation with the radicals. The radicals freely run Islamic madrassas (schools), which are training grounds for Islamic radicalism and terrorism.What that means is that the countries we like so much in the Middle East are unstable, and their governments might eventually be toppled, which could give Islamic radicals access to nuclear weapons and lots of oil. In fact, that might be the end game in Iraq.The U.S. has less ability than you think to pull levers and make the world turn the way they want it to. There are always unintended consequences, and the U.S. disregards at its own peril the populations of the countries whose governments they are replacing.
-
hmmmm Israel you say, ths anything to do with the problems in gaza with the palestines I wonder?
-
In reply to: In 20 years, Iran might well have reliable ICBMs and a slew of a-bombs along with most other countries in the world. I agree that the USA often implements short terms solutions of forcing something on a foreign people and expecting them to take it because its the USA that's doing it. In fact most countries and people would not accept any American solutions because they are American! And also funny how the US will not support dictatorships in any shape or form, unless it benifits them directly, such as Egypt and in earlier times Batista in Cuba.
-
Egypt and in earlier times Batista in CubAnd Egypt today. The list goes on and on. Saudi Arabia. Kuwait. China (they own a large chunk of U.S. debt). Any number of right wing Latin American dictators in the 1900's, which now may be leading to left wing dictatorships. The Shah of Iran (who was installed by the U.S.), which ultimately lead to the Islamic Republic. President Nguyen Van Thieu of South Vietnam. And now, some of the most vicious dictatorships in the world, in Central Asia. And Even Saddam Hussein in the 1980's, when they were seen a bulwark against Iran, even as they were gassing their own citizens, with the U.S.'s knowledge. In fact, here's a photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein: Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.In reply to:By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol requires that the international community respond to chemical warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a muted response to its complaints [Note 1]. It intensified its accusations in October 1983, however, and in November asked for a United Nations Security Council investigation.GWU NSA Archive:The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [reference]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [reference].Sometimes the U.S. appears to eager to give up the moral high ground for its own perceived security needs (even though those actions damage their security in the ass in the long term). The Saddam thing happened under Reagan. We won't even get into the whole Iran-Contra thing (where, among other things, Costa Rica was almost destabilized), or the School of the Americas.And some people think other nations resent the U.S. out of jealousy, or just because the U.S. is big and powerful. Such people, some of whom think that all immigrants to the U.S. should immediately tramsform themselves into Protestant Caucasians, have not tried to stand in the shoes of people in other parts of the world. The don't seem to be able to empathize.And now the U.S. engages in wide-spread torture (as well as its proxies, to whom prisoners in U.S. custody are rendered), and we still wonder why they don't like us. Amazing.
-
In reply to: (they own a large chunk of U.S. debt). really but i know they need trade links with USA but a communist china having debt to capitalist USA doesnt look good, then again china is the most populous country with the biggest, and cheapest labour force, and USA is probably very worried about having to compete with china.That pic was interesting. So the USA fraternised with Sadamn himself? Sounds like the whole Bin Laden thing with the (i think its taliban) where the USA supported them against the USSR, gave them a lot of weapons to fight with, and now complain when their foreign policy and security measures backfire and Bin laden suddenly decides to play smart and turn on them again. Another example of successful American Policy.
-
> communist china having debt to capitalist USA
Yes, it's the U.S. that has an enormous and growing debt to China.
> when their foreign policy and security measures backfire
It's another example of the U.S. getting involved, while having little understanding of the local culture and geopolitics, doing what looks advantageous in the short term, and having it blow up in their face in the long term. It happens over and over and over again. And the people who let it happen in Iraq are still in charge.
-
"And now the U.S. engages in wide-spread torture..."Could you post any relevant source that would support the validity of this comment?While I'm sure some things have been done behind closed doors, I'm also sure that the US doesn't do half the things the media claims it has. Unfortunately, it's all to popular these days to just buy into whatever the media says as long as it's anti-US. It's gotten so bad that if anything ever becomes popular opinion these days, it's a signal to me that it bears closer examination.
-
Will they be so worried now we've found out that korea's missle only lasted 35 secs and fell in the sea? Mind you why are they bothering... Or will the US get more hyped especially since Korea agreed a couple of times to stop launching missles, but they've already gone and blown that....
-
In reply to:
While I'm sure some things have been done behind closed doors, I'm also sure that the US doesn't do half the things the media claims it has. Unfortunately, it's all to popular these days to just buy into whatever the media says as long as it's anti-US. It's gotten so bad that if anything ever becomes popular opinion these days, it's a signal to me that it bears closer examination.
Do you think the "liberal" media is 100% lies? However accurate it is, without it, we'd get only propaganda from the government. Do you trust that our "screwed up" media has even uncovered all that's gone on?
Perhaps you're uncomfortable with the imprecision of the word "widespread".
Are you not familiar with the techniques used at Abu Gharib and Guantanamo? Are you familiar with extraordinary rendition? Are you familiar with the recent murder/rape case in Iraq? Not to mention all the "collateral damage" in Iraq, where life seems to be very cheap. (The military has reimbursed a lot of Iraqi families for causing the wrongful deaths of Iraqi citizens, to put it euphemistically.)
The U.S. claims that torture that doesn't leave physical evidence (like waterboarding and other forms of psychological torture) isn't actually torture. The U.S. will not agree not to torture (McCain's bill went nowhere. According to documents drafted by the now-attorney general, the Geneva Convention doesn't apply, and certain "techniques" are fair game.
The problem is that when things get out of hand, low-level military folks are sacrificed. No one in a position that leads to the situation is held accountable. If the U.S. is going to use such methods, then the president should sign off on it, case-by-case. The lack of accountability is unacceptable.
Is there anything that you believe that U.S. intelligence and military have done that would fall into the realm of torture?
By the way, are you not familiar with last week's Supreme Court decision, which slapped down the administration's idea that the U.S. can just hold people in Guantanamo forever without a trial?
-
Some people are doing a lot of bad things, but is it government sanctioned?It's not a few bad apples. There is a widepspread pattern, for example specific things that are done to humiliate Moslem men. These techniques weren't thought up and shared by soldiers. And who's doing extraordinary rendition? And why won't the Congress pass legislation against torture? Cheney's been pushing as hard as possible against it. Are you familiar with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales writing on the subject, when he was White House counsel, and after?And yes, things like waterboarding and infliction of pain are within U.S. policy.> Perhaps we should just saw off their heads with a dull knife and put it on the internet? Would that suit you, Steve? That was not constructive. Perhaps you can stick to the arguments at hand.
-
In reply to:If you know why these things are happening, why are you not a part of the solution, rather than the most prolific poster of a sex advice board? LOL!! Nicely said Rad!
-
No, seriously: Perhaps we should just saw off their heads with a dull knife and put it on the internet? Would that suit you, Steve?Seriously, that's not constructive. I don't even know what you're talking about.> And, no, I don't believe the things you've bitched about are government policy or sanctioned by the American people.The policy of the government and the opinion of U.S. citizens are often at odds, if you believe the polls. I'm not sure what you base your opinion on, either way.> But things are going on. Why? I don't know.As a citizen, and presumably one who votes, it might behoove you to look into it.> Do I approve? No!That's good.> Am I going to paint the entire USA with the same brush you do? No!I'm not painting the entire USA. I'm laying it at the feet of the folks in charge of the U.S. government. Do you think anyone is responsible, or do things like dogs all over Moslems is something that just happens to occur at random, in various places?> If you know why these things are happening, why are you not a part of the solution, rather than the most prolific poster of a sex advice board?This is exclusively a sex advice board? It appears to be more than that, or there wouldn't be a Community Forum. And once again, you seem to think you know a lot about me, which should be irrelevant in the fist place, if we're arguing facts rather than personalities. How do you know to what extent I'm part of the solution? I can't go to Guantanamo and tell them how they should run the place (in fact, my government won't let me travel to Cuba). But I vote, and I'm involved in other ways, to the extent that it has anything to do with the argument about the federal government's policies.
-
[Turning off sigs, because some people have gigantic ones.] Do you have anything useful to add besides, "Duh, heh heh, yeah man! You tell him!" Do you actually have anything constructive to add, or are you more interested in ganging up? Does that make you feel good?
-
It was humourus, dont be talking to be. Go defend your self.
-
Steve, it behooves YOU to solve the problem since you know all about the whys and wherefores since you've looked into it!Another wonderfully constructive comment. It adds nothing to the discussion. I still don't understand why you presume to know what I do or don't do, or why it should in any way affect the discussion. Ideas and arguments stand on their own merits, not on the characteristics of the people discussing them.> Go ahead, yell at the kid! Very adult of you!Why are you hanging around a youth sex board?I don't care if he likes you or you like him or who likes whom. If he has nothing consructive to add, I don't see the value in noising up the thread. If he has something useful to offer, I welcome him to go right ahead.
-
Since the paragraph doesn't begin with a ">", I said it, there, in response to your comment about this being a sex advice board.
(By the way, if you don't offset each paragraph, the bracketing is hard to follow. If it's a complex passage with paragraphs, the UBB qoute thing is good to use.)
-
Now, as to the question I asked you: "Since you have all the answers, why are you not solving them instead of being the most prolific poster to a sex advice board?"That is rhetorical question. You're not asking an actual question."Since you have all the answers"Is that sarcasm, or do you literally think I have all the answers?"why are you not solving them instead of being the most prolific poster to a sex advice board?"And I don't understand what what I do has to do with the discussion. And I don't understand why you think I need to tell you what I do, or why you think you have any idea what I do. No matter how many times you repeat the same thing, it still makes no sense.Are you claiming that you're not saying "STFU and go do something useful"?Isn't this little discussion a nice waste of time?